ML20094B490
| ML20094B490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1975 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.4.5, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.4.5, SRP-02.04.05, SRP-2.04.05, NUDOCS 9511010089 | |
| Download: ML20094B490 (9) | |
Text
NUREG-75/087 Wa fr "o.
t, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
(%
"j STANDARD REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
+
v SECTION 2.4.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AND SEICHE FLOODING REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Site Analysis Branch (SAB)
Secondary - None 1.
AREAS OF REVIEW In this section of the safety analysis report (SAR) the hydrometeorological design basis is f
developed to determies the extent of flood protection required for safety-related plant systems. The areas of review include the probable maximum hurricane or other probable maximum
\\
wind storms antecedent water levels, storm tracks, methods of analysis, coincident wind-e generated wave action and wave runup on safety-related structures, potential for wave oscil-lation at the natural periodicity, and the resultant design bases for surge and seiche flooding.
!!. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Hydrometeorological estimates and criteria for development of probable maximum hurricanes for east and Gulf coast sites, squall lines for the Great Lakes, and severe cyclonic wind storms for all lake sites by the Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the staff are used as standards for evaluating the conservatism of the applicant's estimates of severe windstorm conditions, as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59. The Corps of Engineers and NOAA criteria require variation of the basic meterological parameters within given limits to determine the most severe combination that could result. The applicant's estimates should be at least as conservative as the most critical combination of these parameters.
Data from publications of NOAA, the Corps of Engineers, and other sources (such as tide tables tide records, and historical lake level records) are used to substantiate antecedent water levels. These antecedent water levels must be as high as the "10 percent exceedence" monthly spring high tide plus a sea level anomaly based on the maximum difference between recorded and predicted average water levels for durations of two weeks or longer for coastal locations or the average monthly recorded high water for the Great Lakes. In a similar manner, the storm track, wind fields, effective fetch lengths, direction of approach, and frictional surface and bottom effects are evaluated by independent staff analysis to assure USNRC STAND ARD REVIEW PLAN UUn ea.e, NEYddeee'meme ed'n$
,E.
eNie"c"en **ie pen'eYtNN4 b*dN endN
~
ie
=
- ".,'f.'e*".,:'t,,1:""1.'.,r.'o" "*e':",:"el'."e,',m:'.'t, e s ee-,e
- m. _a""O.en,.'t:' "'.%"JO.:; 0 * :;tt',:::f"e1," ",'
e'a ~e O."o ""It.
e fe..sies,, ewe. teme m e. e.ct
- e. the.t de d Pubteshed standeed eeweow phone wsN be revtsed periodisenv. es oppropetete. to seeemmed,te commente end to retteet new intermetlen and espertence Commente end egggeettene for lsenprovement w611 be _
J end should be sent to the U $ weleet Regulatory Commise6en.0fface of.weleet Roseter Reeviethen. Weehington. O C.2esas 11/24/75 9511010089 751124 PDR NUREG 75/087 R PDR g-
that the most critical values have been selected. Models used to estimate surge hydro-graphs that havs not previously been reviewed and approvid by the staff are verified by reproducing historical events, with any discrepancies in the model being on the conservative (i.e.,high) side.
Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers as generally sunnarized in Reference 30 are e
used as a standard to evaluate the applicant's estimate of coincident wind-generated wave action and runup.
Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers and other standard techniques are used to evaluate the potential for oscillation of waver at natural periodicity.
Criteria and methods of the Corps of Engineers (Ref. 30) are used to evaluate the adequacy of protection from flooding, including the static and dynamic effects of broken, breaking, and nonbreaking waves.
The analysis will be considered complete and acceptable if the following areas are addressed and can be independently and comparably evaluated from the applicant's submission (the following presumes that it has been determined that surge and seiche flooding estimates are necessary to identify flood design bases):
1.
All reasonable combinations of probable maximum hurricane, moving squall line, or other cyclonic wind storm parameters are investigated, and the most critical conbination is selected for use in estimating a water level.
2.
Models used in the evaluation are verified, or have been previously approved.
Detailed descriptions of bottom profiles are.provided (or are readily obtainable) 3.
to enable an independent estimate of surge levels to be made.
4.
Detailed descriptions of shoreline protection and safety-related facilities are provided to enable an independent estimate of wind-generated waves, runup, and potential erosion to be made.
5.
Ambient water levels, including tides and sea level anomalies, are estimated as described above.
6.
Combinations of surge levels and waves that may be critical to plant design are considered, and adequate information is supplied to allow a determination that no adverse combinations have been omitted.
If Regulatory Guide 1.59. Position 2 is elected by the applicant, the design basis for 7.
flood protection of all safety-related facilities identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 must be shown to be adequate in terms of time required for implementation of any emer-gency procedures. The applicant must also demonstrate that the less severe design basis 2.4.5-2 11/24/75 l
T
-,... ~. -
selected will provide for all potential flood situations that could negate the time and capability to initiate flood emergency procedures.
In general, the staff will make an independent estimate of surge, seiche, and wave action effects (staticanddynamic). If the estimated effects are comparable with those of the applicant, or if the applicant's estimates are greater, the proposed design basis will be considered confinned.
111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The review procedure is outlined on Figure 2.4.5.
In general, the conservatism of the applicant's estimate of flood potential from surges and seiches is judged against the cri-teria indicated above and as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.
If the site is not near a large body of water the staff findings may be prepared a_ priori. Methods of the Corps of Engineers and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (HUR 7-97 and amend.
ments) are used to develop the critical probable maximum hurricane (Pfei) parameters for the site. The Corps of Engineers model SURGE (or other verified models) may be used to estimate the maximum surge stillwater elevations at coastal sites. Cnincident wind-generated waves and runup are estimated from publications by the Corps of Engineers (Ref.30). Reports of, NOAA and the Corps of Engineers are used to estimate probable maximum wind fields over the Great Lakes. Models such as Platzmann's, or other verified models, are used to estimate the maximum surge or selche stillwater elevation for Great Lakes sites; coincident wind-generated waves and runup are estimated as above.
Seiching potential is evaluated by comparing the natural period of oscillation (resonance) of the water body with the estimated meteorologically-induced wave periods. Resonance of a water body may be calculated by the methods presented in Ref. 30, or standard texts.
Generally, a demonstration that the water body cannot generate or sustain waves of the required period (for resonance) is satisfactory to conclude that atmospheric pressure and wind-generated wave amplification is not possible. If resonance is possible, the maximum seiche must be considered in the selection of the critical flood design bases.
Consultants may be employed by the staff in either an advisory role on specific aspects of the analysis, or to make a separate independent analysis, depending upon the complexity of the analysis and available staff manpower.
The consultants may be from the Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) or private contractors.
The above reviews are performed only when applicable to the site or site region. Some items of review may be done on a generic basis.
IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS For construction permit (CP) reviews the findings will consist of a statement summarizing the applicant and staff estimates of critical water level (including wind-generated wave levels) at the site. If the estimates are similar staff concurrence will be stated.
If the staff predicts substantially higher water levels, and the proposed plant may be adversely affected a statement requiring use of the staff estimate for the design basis 2.4.5-3 11/24/75
j will be made. If the flood conditions do not constitute a design basis, the statement will so indicate.
For operating license (0L) reviews of plants which have received detailed reviews during the CP review, the CP conclusions will be referenced. However, a review will be made to assure that protection against the design-basis water level conditions established in the CP review has been properly implemented. In addition, a review of surge and seiche history since the CP review will be made. Any new infomation or improvements in predictive models will be noted. If no detailed CP review was undertaken, this fact will be indicated in the OL findings.
If Regulatory Guide 1.59. Position 2. is elected by the applicant for protection, a statement describing lesser design bases will be included in the findings with the staff conclusion of f
adequacy.
i l
A sample statement for an OL review follows:
"The design basis hurricane-induced high and low stillwater levels were established during the CP review at elevations 22.0 feet MSL and -7.5 feet MSL. respectively.
{
These levels are based upon the estimated water levels, exclusive of wave action, that would occur'during passages of a probable maximum hurricane (PMH)N o the houth and t
north, respectively, of the plant. At the request of the staff, the applicant analyzed i
the wave conditions on safety-related facilities that could accompany the 22 foot MSL surge level. The results of these analyses indicate the most severe wave action would i
be restricted to the canal, and that high ground levels would limit wave heights in the vicinity of exposed safety-related buildings, except the service water intake, to 1.6 feet. For the intake, the applicant has estimated waves 3 feet high. The resulting wave runup levels were estimated to reach a maximum elevation of 28.3 feet MSL on the intake, and 25.6 feet MSL on other exposed buildings."
l TA PMH is considered to be the worst hurricane reasonably possible of occurrence."
l V.
REFERENCES 1.
G. Birkhoff. " Hydrodynamics; a Study in Logic. Fact and Similitude." Princeton UniversityPress(1960).
J 2.
B. R. Bodine. " Storm Surge on the Open Coast: Fundamentals and Simplified Prediction."
Technical Memorandum No. 35. Corps of Engineers. Coastal Engineering Research Center (1971).
3.
C. L. Bretschneider. " Hurricane Surge Predictions for Chesapeake Bay." Miscellaneous
]
Paper 3-59. U.S. Arnty Beach Erosion Board (1959).
4.
C. L. Bretschneider and J.1. Collins. " Prediction of Hurricane Surge; An Investigation I
for Corpus Christi. Texas and Vicinity." NESCO Technical Report No. SN-120 prepared by National Engineering Science Co. for U. S. Army Engineer District. Galveston (1963).
2.4.5-4 11/24/75 i
l 5.
R. Correnstein, " Wave Setup on a Beach," NHRP R2 port No. 50, Proc. cf the Sxcond Ttchnical Conference on Hurricanes, U.S. L'eather cureau, pp. 230-241 (1962).
6.
G. E. Dunn and B. I. Miller, " Atlantic Hurricanes " Louisiana State University Press.
RevisedEdition(1964).
7.
J. C. Fairchild "Model Study of Wave Set-up Induced by Hurricane Waves at Narragansett Pier, Rhode Island," U.S. Army Beach Erosion Board Bulletin, Vol.12, pp. 9-20 (1958).
8.
H. Fortak, "Concerning the General Vertically Averaged Hydrodynamic Equations with Respect to Basic Storm Surge Equations," Report No. 51, National Hurricane Research Project, U. S. Weather Bureau, p. 70(1962).
9.
J. C. Freeman, Jr., L. Baer, and C. H. Jung, "The Bathystrophic Storm Tide," Jour.of Marine Research, Vol.16, No.1 (1957).
10.
H. E. Graham and D. E. Nunn, " Meteorological Considerations Pertinent to Standard Project Hurricane Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," Report No. 33, National Hurricane Research Project U. S. Weather Bureau and Corps of Engineers (1959).
11.
D. L. Harris, "The Effect of a Moving Pressure Disturbance on the Water Level in a Lake," Meteorological Monographs, Vol. 2, No.10. American Meteorological Society, pp.46-57(1957),
12.
D. L. Harris " Characteristics of the Hurricane Storm Surge," Technical Paper No. 48 U.S. Department of Commerce (1963).
13.
D. L. Harris, "A Critical Survey of the Storm Surge Protection Problem," The Eleventh Symposium on Tsunami and Storm Surges, pp. 47-65(1967).
14.
B. Haurwitz, "The Slope of Lake Surfaces under Variable Wind Stresses," Technical Memorandum No. 25. U.S. Army Beach Erosion Board (1951).
15.
J. J. Leendertse, " Aspects of a Computational Model for Long-Period Water Wave Propa-gation " Memorandum RM-5294-PR, prepared for United States Air Force, Project Rand (1967).
i s
16.
M. S. Longuet-Higgins and R. W. Stewart " Radiation Stress and Mass Transport in Gravity Waves, with Application to ' Surf Beat'," Jour, of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.13, pp. 481-504 (1962).
17.
M. S. Longuet-Higgins and R. W. Stewart, "A Note on Wave Set-up " Jour. of Marine Research,Vol.21,pp.4-10(1963).
18.
M. S. Longuet-Higgins and R. W. Stewart, " Radiation Stress in Water Waves; a Physical Discussion, with Application " Deep-Sea Research, Vol. 11, pp. 529-562 (1964).
2.4.5-5 i
11/24/75
._. ~. _ _ _. _ _.. _
i 19.
C. Marinos and J. W. Woodward " Estimation of Hurricane Sur9e Hydrographs " Jour.
Waterways and Harbors Division, Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engin1ers, Vol. 94, No. W2, pp.189-216(1968).
20.
M. Miyazaki, "A Numerical Computation of the Storm Surge of Hu"icane Carla 1961 in the Gulf of Mexico " Technical Report No.10, Dept. of Geophysical 2 tences (1963).
j
\\
21.
V. A. Myers, " Characteristics of United States Hurricanes Pertinent to Levee Design for Lake Okeechobee, Florida," Hydrometeorological Report 32. V. S. Weather Bureau (1954).
l l
- 22. ' G. W. Platzman, "A Numerical Computation of the Surge of 26 ' June 1954 on Lake Michigan,"
Geophysica Vol. 6 (1958).
1 23.
G. W. Platzman, "The Dynamical Prediction of Wind Tides on Lake Erie " Technical Rpt.
No. 7, Contr. CWB-9768. Dept. of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago (1963).
[
24.
L. Prandtl, "The Mechanics of Viscous Fluids," in " Aerodynamic Theory," W. F. Durand, Ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Volume III Div. 6 (1935).
25.
R. O. Reid. " Modification of the Quadratic Bottom-Stress Law for Turbulent Channel Flow 1
in the Presence of Surface Wind-Stress " Technical Memorandum No. 93. U.S. Army Beach Erosion Board (1957).
26.
R. O. Reid and B. R. Bodine, " Numerical Model for Storm Surges in Galveston Bay,"
Joer Waterways and Harbors Division Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol. 94, No. WWl, pp.33-57(1968).
27.
T. Saville.
Jr., " Experimental Determination of Wave Set-up," NHRP Report No. 50. Proc.
of the Second Technical Conference on Hurricanes, pp. 242-252 (1962).
28.
T. Saville. E. McClendon, and A. Cochran, " Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Inland Reservoirs," Jour. Waterways and Harbors Division Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol. 88 No. WW2, pp 93-124 (1962).
- 29. " Waves in Inland Reservoirs: Sumary Report on CWI Projects CW-164 and CW-165 " Technical Memorandum No.132. U. S. Army Beach Erosion Board (1962),
- 30. " Shore Protection Planning and Design " Technical Report No. 4. Third Edition, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (1966) and " Shore Protection Manual," (1974).
- 31. " Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Determination of Spillway Capacities and Freeboard Allowances for Dams," Engineer Circular No. 1110-2-27, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1966).
- 32. " Computation of Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Reservoirs," Engineer Technical Letter No. 1110-2-8, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1966).
2.4.5 6 11/24/75 2
1 e
e y
~
33.
D. C. Van Dorn. " Wind Stress on an Artificial Pond," Jour, of Marine Research, Vol.12'(1953).
34.
.T. Von Karman, "Mechanische Ahnlickeit und Turbulenz (Mechanical Similitude and Turbulence)," Proc. of the 3rd International Congress for Applied Mechanics, Stockholm, Vol. I, pp. 85-93(1920).
v
- 35.. P. Weylander,'" Numerical Prediction of Storm Surges." Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 8, pp.316-379(1961).
- 36. Regulatory Guide 1.29. " Seismic Design Classification."
- 37. Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants."
- 38. " Interim Report - Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," U.S. Weather Bureau Memorandum HUR 7-97, and HUR-97f. (1368).
39.
-U.S. Atomic Energy Coninission. Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-302, Letter to Florida Power Corporation requesting additional infomation regarding '
hydrologic engineering and hurricane surge verification, October 12,1973.
- 40. Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for
. Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 2.
l 2.4.5-7
\\
11/24/75 J
t'
~
+
k
FIGURE 2.4.5 k
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.4.5 Z
PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AND SEICHE FLOODING D
w RECEIVE SAR.
g.
IS THE SITE AT OR NEAR A LARGE BODY OF WATER.
i a
i l
l COAST l GREAT LAKES OR OTHER.
4 4
IS DATA SUFFICIENT TO ANALYZE NO IS DATA SUFFICIENT TO ANALYZE 2
POTENTIAL SURGE.SEICHE, WAVES, POTENTIAL SURGE, WAVES, AND RUNUP7 AND RUNUP7 P
RUN SEICHE MODEL (PLATZMANN RUN SURGE MODEL (CERC) CALC, WAVES 1'
P OR OTHER) CALC. WAVES & RUNUP r AND RUNUP (TR 4 OR SHORE Y
(CERC TR 4,OR SHORE PROTECTION PROTECTION MANUAL) 08 MANUAL) t I
1 l
ARE APPLICANT *S ESTIMATES ARE APPLICANT *S ESTIMATES CONSERVATIVE?
CONSERVATIVE?
h l
/Q d
M l
h STAFF ESTIMATES CONTROL STAFF ESTIMATES CONTROL FLOOD DESIGN BASES.
- 9 P ;
FLOOD DESIGN BASES
- l t
5 iy l WRITE STAFF POSITION. l l
4 l
REVIEW RESPONSE. l l
i t
1
- l h
I' WRITE SER INPUT.
l i
.=.
l 4
l i
j l
i SRP 2
h t
[
I I
i i
i
- m..